The debate on stem cells is far from over

Page Tools

THE debate held in Federal Parliament in 2002 on the issue of
stem cell research was one of the most informed held in that forum
on any issue in recent years. It was a good example of what can
happen when party politics are set aside in the interests of
seeking workable solutions to issues that involve fundamental
questions of human ethics and morality. The pity, of course, is
that more of Parliament's work does not regularly proceed from such
a basis of considered, passionate and intelligent discussion. As a
result of that informed debate, laws were passed governing embryo
research with a three-year sunset clause that expires this year.
Reproductive cloning was outlawed. But the use for stem cell
research of spare IVF embryos, which would have otherwise been
destroyed, was permitted. The law provided a temporary fix, but the
scientific, moral and ethical debates are far from over.

A review of that law is currently under way. Inevitably it has
given renewed voice to both sides of the debate. Victorian
Treasurer John Brumby is using the opportunity to call for a
quantum shift in the use of embryos for research, while Federal
Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane has signalled that Canberra may be
receptive to change. Mr Brumby wants the law amended to allow for
"therapeutic cloning". This involves the use of donated eggs as a
growing medium for stem cells using a replacement nucleus from a
patient's cell. When the cells are harvested, the embryo is
destroyed in the process. What Mr Brumby is arguing for is at the
core of the ethical debate about the use of embryonic stem cells.
He argues it holds much promise in treating diseases, better
understanding of how diseases work, possible drug discoveries and
patient response to medicines.

The fundamental problem with Mr Brumby's argument is that it is
based largely on perceived scientific and community benefits that
remain largely speculative. His reasoning for change is also driven
in part by a sense of commercial opportunity. Mr Brumby does not
want Australia to "lose its hard-won leading stem cell status". Mr
Macfarlane is concerned that biotechnology businesses are being
driven away from Australia because of uncertainty over embryo
research laws. But this alone is not good enough justification,
especially while the scientific community is still arguing about
the relative merits of embryonic as opposed to adult stem cell
research. The use of the latter poses none of the ethical
dilemmas.

There are many other issues Australians must face. What if
embryonic stem cell research allowed in other countries yields
results that deliver wide-ranging health benefits? Would there be
objections to benefiting from this research here? Are researchers
doing enough to encourage the donation of abandoned IVF embryos?
Are the possibilities of adult stem cell research exhausted?
Exciting though it sounds, the science has still not delivered on
its promises. Nor has the community been fully engaged in the moral
and ethical dilemmas this research poses. The Age believes the
science and the debate still have a long way to run before the law
can be fixed with certainty.